H.266/VVC Standard Finalized With ~50% Lower Size Compared To H.265

[anarki2]

That extra 30% you get only matters if you are YouTube or Netflix...

That is, only about 90% of all the use cases, yes.

[SirMaster]

They said the same about H265 compared to H264 and it didn't achieve anything like that.

Reference H.265 did against reference H.264.

I think you are mistakenly comparing early reference H.265 encoders vs. years and years of optimized x264 encoder.

If you want to compare to x264, you need to use a recent x265 encoder build which is now quite a lot better.

I encode 4K content with x265 and am able to get much smaller files at the same quality as x264 these days.

[milkylainen]

I don't care much for Fraunhofer or any other encoder/decoder developer.
They are usually so full of shit (and their code is too) that it's not even funny.
Media was and always will be a broken shit show.

[SirMaster]

The problem that I suspect these guys are about to discover is that h264 is "good enough" (and interestingly going out of patent soon). That's the reality of why HEVC never really took off. That extra 30% you get only matters if you are YouTube or Netflix...

I'm interested in how this stacks up against AV1. I'm betting it'll beat AV1 by at most 10%. I'm also interested in how much AV1 IP it's infringing, and if Google add support to Android...

h264 is definitely not good enough for 4K 10-bit HDR at least in my experience comparing x264 vs x265 encoders for my 4K HDR content.

[sdack]

As I said in my post, I just used MPEG-2 to encode a 4K60 video, so it definitely works.

The problem isn't that it wouldn't work, it's that the amount of data we receive from image sensors has been growing geometrically. We used to process videos with just 640x480 pixels in the past, which is just about 300,000 pixels, and now even mobile phones can sport 24 million pixel sensors. We are then already at 60Hz, with higher rates on the way as well has higher pixel depths, too. When we there only create more compact storage systems, but not also improve the compression algorithms, then video will continue to use up all our storage space.

[ksec]

Would be interesting to see an article tracking the generated file sizes of all the video compression algorithms from back in the day, although MPEG1,2 probably can't do 4K and these newer ones are probably more efficient at the higher resolutions. I'm constantly amazed at each generation's advances.
!

What an idea! Would love to see how we manage. MPEG1 to all support 1080P res. So we could definitely test that.

[OneTimeShot]

That is, only about 90% of all the use cases, yes.

I am not YouTube or Netflix, so these savings certainly don't matter to me. My network connection is plenty fast enough for h264, and my SSD is big enough as well. It's going to take significantly more than a 50% saving for most people to care about video compression these days. Video is a solved problem to anyone who isn't in the market for gold-plated HDMI cables.

The only remaining issue is the patents, so I can either use AV1 or wait for h264 to go out of patent (h264 was released in 2003).

[shmerl]

This is dead on arrival since it's not royalty free like any modern codec should be.

[tildearrow]

Typo in the article: Fraunhover -> Fraunhofer

Why in the world? Where? There are like 5 Fraunhofer now

[cl333r]

~50% lower size means ~50% more power to decode it, and ~150% more power to encode it?

It's not a direct relationship, it's more like 300% more power to decode (until implemented in silicon) and 1000% to encode.

But as others have said - it's too little too late, times have changed, a free AV1 is a far better alternative than the money and patent PITA that will be H.266.